User:Qwertygirl123/Digital rhetoric/Qwertygirl123 Peer Review

General info

 * What work you reviewing?

The Wikipedia article for Digital rhetoric


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Digital rhetoric


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Digital rhetoric

Lead section

 * The lead of the Digital rhetoric article has an introductory sentence that does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic.
 * The lead of the Digital rhetoric article does not explicitly include a brief description of the article's major sections, but alludes to these sections through its content.
 * The lead of the Digital rhetoric article does not seem to reference information not otherwise in the article.
 * The lead of the Digital rhetoric article is slightly overly detailed; I think it could be more concise.

Content

 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article is relevant to the topic. the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article is up-to-date from what I see.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article seems to contain no irrelevant content. It seems that the content of the Digital rhetoric article is broad and covers a broad part of information on the topic, but I cannot guarantee that there is not missing content.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article does not directly deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but this topic does have very relevant theories, subfields, and methods of analysis that are related to historically underrepresented populations, like the subsection on Technofeminism.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article is, for the most part, written from a neutral point of view. Here and there sentences can be found which make an argument or express a non-neutral point of view.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article does not support an abundance of claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position; there are a handful of sentences that are biased toward a particular position, though.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article does contain underrepresented viewpoints; I think that the sections on Technofeminism and Controversies could use more attention and representation.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article accurately represents viewpoints.
 * The content of the Digital rhetoric article does not seem to attempt to persuade viewers one way or another.

Sources and References

 * The facts in the Digital rhetoric article are not all backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Facts of this kind can be found throughout the article; most sections seem to have at least one of these unreferenced facts.
 * The sources in the Digital rhetoric article seem to reflect the available literature on the topic, but I believe that more sources and a wider variety of available sources could be brought in to support this article.
 * The sources in the Digital rhetoric article are seem to be written by a fairly diverse spectrum of authors. Just by presuming based on my own knowledge and interpretation, I think that the scholarship of historically marginalized individuals is represented in this article's sources, but is not represented as well as it could be.
 * Better sources do seem available to support the Digital rhetoric article, especially in terms of digital cultural rhetoric in platforms like video games.
 * The source links I checked from the Digital rhetoric References list all worked.

Organization and writing quality

 * The Digital rhetoric article is fairly well written. It is easy to read. However, it could be made more concise and paragraphs could be broken up into smaller blocks.
 * The Digital rhetoric article does not have any glaring or habitual grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The Digital rhetoric article is fairly well-organized. The quality of this article could be improved by breaking up paragraphs into smaller sections and creating a stronger hierarchy of subsections/

Images and Media

 * The Digital rhetoric article includes only two images; these images improve the look of this article and likely help enhance understanding of the topic, but they are small and not very visually attractive.
 * The Digital rhetoric article has well-captioned images.
 * I believe that all images in the Digital rhetoric article do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The Digital rhetoric article's images are laid out in a semi-visually appealing way. The small size of these images damages their appeal.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * The Digital rhetoric article's Talk page includes discussions on possible unnecessary info, renaming the article, linking outside sources, and more. The Digital rhetoric article's Talk page shows collaboration and discussion between contributors.
 * The Digital rhetoric article is rated as having good status.
 * The Digital rhetoric article discusses this topic with a broader scope of analysis and contextualization than our class focus. The article dives into the particular history of digital rhetoric as a shift away from print, the relationship of concepts like kairos and the canon of memory with digital rhetoric, and the relevance of copyright issue controversies. We have not yet discussed these topics in class. However, the article does contain some information that we have discussed in class, like technofeminism and intersectionality.

Overall impressions

 * I can't find what the Digital rhetoric article's status is.
 * The Digital rhetoric article's biggest strength is its breadth of focus.
 * The Digital rhetoric article could be improved by expanding the hierarchy of its sections, diving paragraphs into smaller blocks, and making its lead section more concise. Ensuring that no sentences, paragraphs, or sections are biased would also improve this article's quality.
 * The Digital rhetoric article seems to provide a fairly well completed start. I would say that its breadth of information is very valuable, but I think that the information in this article and its sections could be more well-developed.